Where Did the Gap Go? Reassessing the Long-Range Graph Benchmark
Abstract
The recent Long-Range Graph Benchmark (LRGB, Dwivedi et al. 2022) introduced a set of graph learning tasks strongly dependent on long-range interaction between vertices. Empirical evidence suggests that on these tasks Graph Transformers significantly outperform Message Passing GNNs (MPGNNs). In this paper, we carefully reevaluate multiple MPGNN baselines as well as the Graph Transformer GPS (Ramp\'a\v{s}ek et al. 2022) on LRGB. Through a rigorous empirical analysis, we demonstrate that the reported performance gap is overestimated due to suboptimal hyperparameter choices. It is noteworthy that across multiple datasets the performance gap completely vanishes after basic hyperparameter optimization. In addition, we discuss the impact of lacking feature normalization for LRGB's vision datasets and highlight a spurious implementation of LRGB's link prediction metric. The principal aim of our paper is to establish a higher standard of empirical rigor within the graph machine learning community.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 4 datasets
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
LRGB
| # | Model | MAE ↓ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GCN | 0.2460
±0.0007 | prev best: On the Connection Between MPNN and Graph Transformer (ICML 2023) best today: From Message-Passing to Linearized Graph Sequence Models (2026) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 2 | IPR-MPNN | 0.2422
±0.0007 | |
| 3 | TANGO-GPS | 0.2422
±0.0014 | |
| 5 | GIN | 0.2429
±0.0019 | |
| 7 | GatedGCN | 0.2477
±0.0009 | prev best: On the Connection Between MPNN and Graph Transformer (ICML 2023) best today: From Message-Passing to Linearized Graph Sequence Models (2026) |
| 49 | GINE | 0.2473
±0.0017 | prev best: On the Connection Between MPNN and Graph Transformer (ICML 2023) |
| 85 | GPS | 0.2500
±0.0005 best reported | best today: Bridging Input Feature Spaces Towards Graph Foundation Models (ICLR 2026) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 201 | MLP | 0.4351
±0.0008 |
| # | Model | AP ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | S^2GCN | 0.7311
±0.0066 | |
| 2 | S4G | 0.7293
±0.0004 | |
| 3 | BuNN | 0.7276
±0.0065 | |
| 4 | GCN | 0.6860
±0.0050 | prev best: On the Connection Between MPNN and Graph Transformer (ICML 2023) best today: From Message-Passing to Linearized Graph Sequence Models (2026) |
| 26 | GIN | 0.7059
±0.0089 | |
| 34 | GatedGCN | 0.6765
±0.0047 | prev best: On the Connection Between MPNN and Graph Transformer (ICML 2023) best today: From Message-Passing to Linearized Graph Sequence Models (2026) |
| 78 | GINE | 0.6621
±0.0067 | prev best: On the Connection Between MPNN and Graph Transformer (ICML 2023) |
| 87 | GPS | 0.6562
±0.0115 best reported | best at pub: A Generalization of ViT/MLP-Mixer to Graphs (ICML 2022) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 181 | MLP | 0.4060
±0.0021 |
| # | Model | F1 ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NeuralWalker | 0.4912
±0.0042 | |
| 2 | PPGT | 0.4641
±0.0033 | |
| 3 | CRaWl | 0.4588
±0.0079 | This paper |
| 14 | GPS | 0.4440
±0.0065 | This paper |
| 41 | GatedGCN | 0.3880
±0.0040 | This paper |
| 42 | Gated-GCN | 0.3880
±0.0040 | |
| 75 | GINE | 0.2718
±0.0054 | This paper |
| 81 | GCN | 0.2380
±0.0160 best reported | best today: When Graph Neural Networks Meet Dynamic Mode Decomposition (ICLR 2024) |
| 93 | MLP | 0.1140
±0.0230 |
| # | Model | F1 ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | FloydNet | 0.4901 | |
| 2 | CRaWl | 0.4588
±0.0079 | |
| 3 | GPS | 0.4440
±0.0065 best reported | |
| 10 | Exphormer | 0.3960
±0.0027 best reported | |
| 16 | GatedGCN | 0.3880
±0.0040 best reported | |
| 33 | Gated-GCN | 0.2922
±0.0018 | |
| 34 | GINE | 0.2718
±0.0054 best reported | |
| 45 | GCN | 0.2078
±0.0031 best reported | |
| 74 | MLP | 0.0310
±0.0160 |
